QBR is a really complicated QB rating system that ESPN came up with. It is supposed to be more accurate than the traditional QB efficiency rating system that is currently used. QBR supposedly takes into account the situation a QB is in and what he does. For example, INTs hurt a QB's efficiency rating, period. But in QBR, I believe an INT thrown when the game is still undecided is given more weight than an INT thrown when you are on the losing side of a blowout and just chucking it to comeback. Other things include scrambles that gain first down are given more weight than a designed QB run play.

Bottom-line, it's supposed to be a more accurate measurement of QB performance than the traditional rating system.

QBR is a really complicated QB rating system that ESPN came up with. It is supposed to be more accurate than the traditional QB efficiency rating system that is currently used. QBR supposedly takes into account the situation a QB is in and what he does. For example, INTs hurt a QB's efficiency rating, period. But in QBR, I believe an INT thrown when the game is still undecided is given more weight than an INT thrown when you are on the losing side of a blowout and just chucking it to comeback. Other things include scrambles that gain first down are given more weight than a designed QB run play.

Bottom-line, it's supposed to be a more accurate measurement of QB performance than the traditional rating system.

It's a proprietary formula. No transparency means I will never give it serious consideration as a metric and the fact that everything is "clutch-weighted" makes the whole measure extremely subjective regardless of how the formula is implemented.

It's a proprietary formula. No transparency means I will never give it serious consideration as a metric and the fact that everything is "clutch-weighted" makes the whole measure extremely subjective regardless of how the formula is implemented.

Yep. It's pretty clear that it's heavily weighing Luck's performance at the end of halves and games. Which are important moments in a game no doubt, but if they decided to add a bit more weight to 3rd Q performance? He'd probably be near the bottom. Those end of half drives along with his 3rd down runs are probably what's driving this.

Through week 4 you act like Luck hasn't been just as good if not better than some of these QBs so far

He hasn't.

I would put him in the middle of the road.... 15-17 or so. There is not a scale, formula, etc, for it to be accurate would rank him #1.

You are taking my belittling the system as a shot at Luck. It is not a hot at the players that it ranks erroneously. It is a shot at the system itself.

Andrew Luck has not played close to being ranked #1 in the NFL. He's not been the best rookie QB to start with, so it's impossible for him to be #1 in the NFL. Again, not a shot at him. A shot at ESPN and their create-a-stat QBR.

The one thing that sticks out about Luck like a sore thumb is that he has one of the lowest completion rates in the NFL. No one doubts that the guy is the total package skills-wise but when it comes to something like QBR, I can't help but suspect that Luck's play is at least partially responsible for the number of clutch play opportunities he has. In fact, the entire Colts team probably shares a role in playing just barely well enough to give Luck opportunities in the clutch and the exact same could be said for the Redskins defense and RGIII.

QBR is a really good stat. Only thing is, its not a very good indicator game to game, best to look at it long term, where it shows its colors. Anyone saying this stat doesnt mean anything, please look at the highest QBR seasons. Its almost spot on.

Luck has been outplaying RG3, as I believe John Clayton pointed out, he has one of the highest completions of 20+. Also pointed out there is a difference between throwing the ball 10 yards, an letting your wideout run 30, and throwing the ball 40 yards in the air. There is a reason Luck has the highest QBR right now, if he can maintain it is the question. He is easily playing like a Top 10 right now. I call it like I see it.

I would put him in the middle of the road....* 15-17 or so.*There is not a scale, formula, etc, for it to be accurate would rank him #1.

Well if you look at his Passing Efficiency rating, he's 20th. He also has the 5 th least amount of plays played and its only 4 weeks in. Some very good QBs have had some bad stats early, like Rodgers getting sacked 6 times for example. Luck hasn't really had any crazy stats like that affecting his QBR. Maybe he's really been the most efficient QB , overall but not strictly passing wise.

Well if you look at his Passing Efficiency rating, he's 20th. He also has the 5 th least amount of plays played and its only 4 weeks in. Some very good QBs have had some bad stats early, like Rodgers getting sacked 6 times for example. Luck hasn't really had any crazy stats like that affecting his QBR. Maybe he's really been the most efficient QB , overall but not strictly passing wise.

I would say the ranking of 20 is closer to being more accurate than the ranking of 1, but I would say that is too low.

It is a small sample size, I'll give you that.

To me Luck @ #1 on that list just doesn't pass the eye ball test. Again, a knock on the system and not the player.

I would say the ranking of 20 is closer to being more accurate than the ranking of 1, but I would say that is too low.

It is a small sample size, I'll give you that.

To me Luck @ #1 on that list just doesn't pass the eye ball test. Again, a knock on the system and not the player.

I know your just knocking the system but your not seeing the same because you want to rate him on passing alone ( in which you and the rating system are close), the QBR is trying to weigh everything though. IMO it's try to show the difference in QBs when under duress . Do they throw the ball away, do they get sacked, do they turn it over, or do they keep the keep the play alive and make plays. Luck has been awesome making plays while under duress, hasn't been sacked much and hasn't thrown many Ints. Then compound that with his play at the end of games and they're behind.

I think Luck's game is just natural for a high QBR, especially when playing from behind.

I know your just knocking the system but your not seeing the same because you want to rate him on passing alone ( in which you and the rating system are close), the QBR is trying to weigh everything though. IMO it's try to show the difference in QBs when under duress . Do they throw the ball away, do they get sacked, do they turn it over, or do they keep the keep the play alive and make plays. Luck has been awesome making plays while under duress, hasn't been sacked much and hasn't thrown many Ints. Then compound that with his play at the end of games and they're behind.

I think Luck's game is just natural for a high QBR, especially when playing from behind.

No I wouldn't say I'm trying to rate on passing alone. Far more goes into quarterbacking. Some things that lead to great quarterbacking can never be quantified in a formula.

It might be failing, who do you think is the most efficient QB after 3 games? No 1 QB has really stuck out for me, it seems all QBs have had some struggles early this season.

In the games I've watched and I watch quite a bit(aka too much) I would say that Matt Ryan has played by far the best football. He's 2 or 3 in QBR, and 1 in Passing efficiency.

He's played better than BBR, Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning/Manning, Flacco, etc. I commend ESPN for trying. It just seems to have some flaws.... A small sample size doesn't help. For them not having their minions take it back in history is another failing point.

QBR isn't a true rating of a QB. Although it's great to see Luck on top of a QB ranking, we also have to realize that this list isn't as credible or doesn't deserve as much merit as a passer rating list, for example.

In the games I've watched and I watch quite a bit(aka too much) I would say that Matt Ryan has played by far the best football. He's 2 or 3 in QBR, and 1 in Passing efficiency.

He's played better than BBR, Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Manning/Manning, Flacco, etc. I commend ESPN for trying. It just seems to have some flaws.... A small sample size doesn't help. For them not having their minions take it back in history is another failing point.

Most of those guys should be in front of Luck but almost all had a game with some black eye of a stat that's screwing with the QBR. Matt Ryan is a good choice for alternate. I think it will pass the eye test more and more as the season goes on and yeah I doesn't help that it's such a hard rating to figure out. The regular passing rating is kinda easy to guess just looking at completion%, yards thrown, and TDs.

QBR isn't a true rating of a QB. Although it's great to see Luck on top of a QB ranking, we also have to realize that this list isn't as credible or doesn't deserve as much merit as a passer rating list, for example.

True. But I'll take it and weigh it against the passer rating and the eyeball test. It's just another way to rate but not the best way.

QBR isn't a true rating of a QB. Although it's great to see Luck on top of a QB ranking, we also have to realize that this list isn't as credible or doesn't deserve as much merit as a passer rating list, for example.

the qbr def has flaws, but the standard passer rating isn't much better......

Take any team in the league, bring the top 10 most talented QB's in the league into their camp. Give them all the same number of snaps and let them battle it out all summer with the same lineman, receivers, defense, coaches, etc and the best QB will emerge over the others. That's the best way to tell because you eliminate most of the variables. Nobody will say "Yeah, but he has Megatron to throw to or he has better pass blocking lineman, etc...."Now, the style of play could affect the outcome, but you can't control everything. In the end, I think the team would respond to one guy over the rest whoever that may be. Ah, fantasy world.

I want to say first that Andrew Luck has played very well but if anyone honestly thinks he's been the best QB in the league so far well that's just proof that you can twist numbers to say anything you want them to say which is all the ESPN formal was made to do.

Just to clarify I'm not saying he has played better than any of those qbs because he hasn't. He's been more impressive IMO than rg3 just because rg3 has a great team around him and he dumps the ball off and his WR do all the work. Redskins also have a great running game which can be rookies best friend. Luck is working with no run game and really no protection. I've been more than impressed with how he is able to escape the pocket and make plays. His awareness in the pocket is great. There have been times when a rusher is coming up behind him and he just feels that pressure and escapes before the sack. So whether its qbr or just qb rating I don't think it's very accurate. The numbers don't take into account what he has to work with and his overall skill set that he is displaying every week. But it is cool to see him at the top even though its probably not accurate.